5. Had Parsons been involved with the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley who called himself “The Beast 666?”

Origin of Issue:

Analysis:

Yes he had. Yes he had. No credible researchers have denied that Parsons had been involved with Crowley. Parsons was involved at least as devotee, personal correspondent, financial supporter, branch head, and spreader of Crowley’s vision and methods. In his “information,” Hubbard did not say what he was claiming Parsons’ involvement was, but did say that Crowley’s organization had savage and bestial rites, and that he, Hubbard, found the black magic rites at the branch Parsons headed very bad.

It had, of course, been published, and was quite well known, years before the Mitchell article1 and Hubbard’s “information” were published, that Crowley was an English black magician, was infamous, and did call himself, among many names and titles, “The Beast 666.” Because of Crowley’s notoriety, Hubbard had a huge motive, when his involvement with Parsons in Crowleyite magic rituals surfaced in Mitchell’s article, to try to distance himself from Crowley’s group and teachings.

As my own case demonstrates, it is possible that Hubbard’s devotees might leave him, and even sue him, and many people would never join his organization, if they knew the truth about his involvement with Parsons and the occult, and about his incorporation of Crowley’s principles and concepts into Scientology. When the Mitchell article had appeared, Hubbard could very easily have envisioned a mass exodus from his organization and a precipitous loss of his personal power, wealth and image. The organization’s current leader David Miscavige faces the same threats, his devotees leaving, new “raw meat” not joining, and loss of power, wealth and image, if the truth about Hubbard’s occult involvement, and the occult incorporated in Scientology, became known.

Concerning these matters, since Hubbard died, Miscavige’s representatives or agents, or others collaborating with his regime, have disseminated Hubbard’s “information” as fact or truth, but have at no time, so far discovered, told the truth. Miscavige and his regime possess the original of Hubbard’s Admissions, originals of other Hubbard occult writings, all the other evidence from the Armstrong I trial2 and from Hubbard’s personal archives, and a wealth of other documentary evidence and testimony that show Hubbard was involved in the occult, incorporated occult, specifically Crowleyite concepts into Scientology, did not break up black magic in America, and was on no mission to do anything at the Crowley branch Parsons headed.

That Parsons had been involved with the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley who called himself “The Beast 666” is largely irrelevant to the determination of whether Hubbard was on a mission into Parsons’ group and broke up black magic in America, or whether black magic material exists in Scientology. That Hubbard in his “information” called Crowley a “black magician” and described his organization’s rites as “savage and bestial,” is, however, relevant to determining Hubbard’s reason or reasons for his mission story.

As other researchers have observed, until Mitchell’s article, which exposed Hubbard’s participation in The Babalon Working and other activities with Crowley black magic group members, Hubbard had spoken or written favorably in his Scientology “scripture” of Parsons and Crowley, and even favorably of Crowley’s system. 3In his Admissions4, which predate his officially published Dianetics/Scientology writings, Hubbard also spoke kindly of Parsons, and even emulated Crowley by calling himself a “master adept” and a “magus” performing powerful and effective “magical work.” It is logically understood that in Hubbard’s Admissions the “psychic experiment” with Jack Parsons was The Babalon Working.

Hubbard’s 1969 description, or black PR, of the Crowley organization’s rites as “savage and bestial” appears to be calculated to manufacture and justify the “need” for the black magic group to be investigated, for black magic in America to be broken up, and for Hubbard to be sent on a mission to achieve those goals. If the Crowley organization’s rites were not savage and not bestial, but, e.g., religious exercise protected by the US Constitution, it would be unseemly, and even probably unlawful and legally indefensible, to break up the subject, practice or group. In order to cover his actual involvement in a religious cult and in religious cultic rituals, Hubbard was willing to identify himself essentially, albeit falsely, as a destroyer of free religious exercise, on a covert mission against US citizens by the US military.

Hubbard’s and Scientology’s depiction of Crowley as “the infamous English black magician,” his organization as a “black magic group,” and its rites as “savage and bestial,” only creates a desirable effect, i.e., for Hubbard and Scientology, if the rest of his “information,” particularly his claims of being on a mission and breaking up black magic in America, are universally believed, or not challenged. If Hubbard’s claims of being on a mission and breaking up black magic in America are untrue or disbelieved, as I certainly disbelieve them, and he was actually involved under his own will in black magic, and then under his own will incorporated black magic into Scientology, these depictions are actually very sobering admissions.

These admissions, by Hubbard and by Scientology under the Miscavige regime, mean that any incorporation of any of Crowley’s ideas into the thought and scripture of Scientology was the incorporation of the ideas of a man whose rites were savage and bestial. These rites, as Hubbard and Scientology also admit, were savage and bestial enough to warrant sending a disabled US Navy officer on a mission to spy on and break up the religious group practicing them. Since there are a considerable number of Crowley’s ideas, or his fellow black magicians’ ideas, incorporated, and identifiable, in Scientology, it is no wonder that Miscavige’s agents and representatives continue to forward Hubbard’s “information,” and have never told the truth they know in these matters.

Conclusion:

Yes, Parsons had been involved with the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley who called himself “The Beast 666?” Amazingly, Hubbard, who lied about so much, and was a judicially declared virtually a pathological liar, got this part right.